The woke-left isn't going around arresting people, nor do they have much (if any) influence in high levels of government.
They are bullying and harassing people, and trying to lump that in with "criticism". To make it worse, when they get called out on it, the left goes to victim blaming. It is just gross, like when people point out what a girl was wearing in a sexual assault case. You can criticize, you can ignore and you can boycott. Instead too many people (look at the response to JK Rowling) are threatening death and rape. Or are ha…
Oh no, people are using their free speech to criticize the speech of others!
From that page: > Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. So, yes, for it to be a hostile workplace under the laws you're talking about, it would need to be based on one of those aspects, not just because people disagree with her opinions.
The article specifically calls out harassment on the basis of protected class. But to read this as saying that unwelcome conduct, so long as it is not on the basis of protected class, isn't harassment is not a correct interpretation. A shape with four equal length sides is a quadrilateral. Does it mean that a shape with four sides of unequal lengths isn't quadrilateral? Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have…
> Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."
As I said on your other post, this would not be workplace harassment. It could possibly be criminal harassment, but that is also unlikely, since criminal harassment usually requires threats of violence.
Speech protections in the US are strong. I'm surprised people aren't just telling Weiss to "toughen up". Which to be clear isn't advice I'm giving her, and I empathize with her discomfort, but that is the advice given to people very often, so I'm curious as to the inconsistency here. Perhaps it's not as easy to tell someone to toughen up when you see yourself in them.
> Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I…
That's the part I disagree with. The NYT isn't following Twitter. Twitter is the modern way to express at the 3rd person ("twitter mob says") what is really meant at the 1st person ("our editor thinks"). You will never see some angry tweet from Trump supporters quoted or even mentioned.
In the old days you would interview enough random people in the street until you found one that said the narrative you wanted to push and that the one you showed on TV / quoted in the article.
Another technique still widely in use today is when you want to attack person x, you go collect some quotes from known opponents to criticize x, and quote a list of criticism as if somehow these were the only relevant reactions.
> They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries ... to gather facts around the world Journalism is not our fact gathering apparatus. It is our sense making and relevance deciding apparatus based on those facts. If we don't have good journalists providing those functions, we are left with the ersatz, AI based versions to decide what to pay attention to; twitter's, youtube's recommendation algor…
Thats only one thing she is saying. The other thing she is saying is that there is no room for anyone who falls outside the orthodoxy of the new progressive religion.
She's politicizing a totally nonpolitical issue. She was totally fine until she live-tweeted public insults about her co workers during a company meeting. If it were not for her politicizing the issue she would be immediately fired.
I was interviewing a candidate last year for a software engineering position. Interview was fine and he was capable. I decided to find him on Twitter. He said immigration was ruining the country, and that there are too many Indians / Chinese in the Bay Area. About half of my organization either have an H1B visa or a green card. Am I a McCarthyist for rejecting him outright without hesitation?
If someone says racist things online, that's plenty reason not to hire them into a diverse environment. ...but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people being punished for daring to disagree with the progressive agenda.
Where was Bari punished? She should have been fired for her terrible piece based entirely on a known fake Twitter account.
Did you read the page you linked? The very first sentence of the body of the page states: >Harassment is a form of employment discrimination... It goes on to say: >Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. They are defining harassment as requiring the behavior to be based on a protected clas…
So if a coworker goes to your workplace every day and says, "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment? Because it's not based on race, religion, sex, etc? The article particularly highlights harassment in the basis of protected class. It does not say that harassment on the basis of things other than protected class is permitted. If what yo…
These words have specific legal meanings in specific contexts. What you are describing is technically bullying and not harassment. Bullying is often illegal, but it isn't regulated to the same degree on the federal level as harassment.
I have not seen a single instance of Weiss being targeted based on religion and Weiss provided zero examples in the body of her letter. Like Weiss, I am also Jewish. Criticizing a Jewish person's political opinions on the state of Israel is not inherently antisemitism. If you can point out a specific example of Weiss being targeted based on her religion, I would concede that I am wrong.
Hilarious that the top comment exemplifies the problem. It seems few today are still able to engage with ideas directly, always trying to filter them through some, any, lens to discredit the ones they don’t like. Sometimes it’s attacking the speaker, sometimes their associations, sometimes the tweets they have “liked.” If all else fails, seek out language in the text itself for unfalsifiable “dog whistles” that allow…
The people who have spent decades trying to keep the airwaves "clean," "family friendly," "anti-communist," etc, are suddenly shocked that they don't get to set the rules anymore, and that they're on the wrong side of some of them. Context is everything for this discussion, because if you truly don't want there to be such censorship, you have to be aware of the motivations of the people pushing for change at the top…
> The people who have spent decades trying to keep the airwaves "clean," "family friendly," "anti-communist," etc, are suddenly shocked that they don't get to set the rules anymore, and that they're on the wrong side of some of them.
Or, to frame it another way, the people who spent decades saying "We should be allowed to broadcast whatever we want, because we support equality and liberty", and "If you don't like what we broadcast then you can just avoid it", are now suddenly finding themselves drunk on the power that they have gained, and are abusing it in much the same way as the people they were complaining about before.
So if a coworker goes to your workplace every day and says, "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment? Because it's not based on race, religion, sex, etc? The article particularly highlights harassment in the basis of protected class. It does not say that harassment on the basis of things other than protected class is permitted. If what yo…
> Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion. No she doesn't. The harassment isn't due to her religion, it's due to how she conducts herself as part of her job. (and it doesn't meet the line for harassment anyway, people expressing workplace disagreements isn't harassment, as much as she may want to dress it up). > "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her pr…
So your answer is yes? Under your understanding of harassment, someone can relentlessly bully and insult their co-worker all day long and it isn't workplace harassment so long as it doesn't refer to protected class?
> There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts". It could be that she is, not being a lawyer, wrong on the "unlawful" part (it's impossible to know without knowing the details and the NY anti-discrimination statutes and caselaw). So what? It's not an argument in a lawsuit, exact precision of all legal terms is not the most important thing here.
When your job is to communicate with the written word, I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be held to the literal interpretation of your words. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if she can't clearly communicate her actual beliefs and opinions through her writing, she is bad at her job.
In my opinion, it is unreasonable. If somebody comes out and says "I am being constantly harassed by my colleagues, this makes my life hell and I think it's also illegal" and you respond with "well, according to the legal precedent from 1925, Snowflake et al. vs Ontinence, Inc., making your life hell is not illegal unless they put a live rat into your drawer and it bit you, and since no evidence of rat bite has been presented, clearly the whole complaint is invalid" - that's not a reasonable way to treat this complaint. If you're a judge considering a motion to dismiss, sure, that's exactly what you'd do. But if you're a reasonable person reacting to a complaint that somebody's life is made hell, then no, the legal precedent of the Snowflake case is not the main thing you should reasonably discuss. You may be more worried about the "hell" part.
> All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, th…
There's a fantastic Slate Star Codex essay (which unfortunately I can't ironically link to, because that blog was cancelled by the New York Times) about the very point you raise. Basically anytime someone famous and successful comes out against cancel culture, the standard rejoinder is it can't be so bad. Doesn't seem to have stopped your career, so why are you whining? And the point is for every high-profile person…